So therefore, the French should be dispossessed of their wealth in all its many manifestations.

That’s globalism.

And, sadly, that’s socialism.

Make everybody the same.

Take by force.

Redistribute.

Doesn’t sound very civilized to me…

Rather, sounds fairly barbarian.

A shortcut on hard work.

But I’m really aiming to get under your thumb (er, skin) as regards “race”.

I put it in skeptical quotations because modern genetics has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the concept of “race” is ridiculous.

As Geoffrey Carr of The Economist puts it, “One group of 55 chimps in West Africa shows more genetic diversity than the whole of humanity.”

I usually don’t trust The Economist farther than I can throw it.

Because there are no bylines.

And it is a clearly globalist rag.

But Mr. Carr has a point.

To put words in his mouth…if there are no races, then there must be no racism.

I’m sure some other word will suffice.

Phenotype.

I’ll get back to you once I wade through Euclid’s Elements.

But I hope my point is clear.

If races don’t exist (a notion the globalists are pushing very hard…for ulterior motives), then racism is an absurd concept.

But still, SOMETHING exists.

Perhaps it’s just a “rose” by another name.

Which brings us to this film.

Three Amigos. It’s racist, right?

I mean, the Mexicans in this film aren’t doctors and lawyers.

They don’t speak flawless English with no hint of accent.

And though they run a small gamut, there are indeed stereotypes at work.

But is it mean-spirited?

I would argue it is not.

Or else, the Pink Panther films should all be banned out of deference to the French.

Which is no less absurd than saying John Landis’ masterpiece under review is “racist”.

But let me bring a different slant (no pun intended) to this dialogue.

In my area, south Texas, a mixing of “races” is apparent.

There are white people. And a few black people. But mostly there are brown people.

And then there are gradations.

So-and-so is darker than what’s-his-name. And so on and so forth.

And we know that this darkness in skin pigmentation (for Mexican-Americans) comes largely from the Native Americans who populated what is today the U.S. and Mexico.

Before the Europeans arrived.

But here’s my personal two bits.

This film, Three Amigos, was cherished by me and all my school chums when we were growing up.

People with last names like Lopez, De Los Santos, etc.

We were all friends.

And though we may have fallen out of touch with one another, we all seemed to find enjoyment in Three Amigos.

Indeed, my Hispanic (Latino) friends apparently found the characterizations of Mexicans the funniest.

And, dare I say it, because (as the adage goes), “It’s–so–true!!!”

Whether any characterization of Mexicans in this film is or isn’t true…that’s immaterial.

For me.

I am not the ultimate judge.

But things have changed.

And it’s not just the Trump effect.

Over the years, people have become more and more “polite”.

That’s a good thing, right?

Well, I’m not so sure…

Because it’s not a genuine politeness.

It’s a politesse which is enforced topdown.

It’s not really a choice.

And, to make dead clear, it is our old nemesis: social engineering.

It is in this sense that social engineering is truly defined.

Any other definition (the activities of a pickpocket, a conman, a hacker) is insufficient and misleading.

Social engineering is, by-and-large, practiced at the highest levels of government, at policy institutions, and in commerce by Ivy League jerks (both male and female) who wish to mold society into a shape pleasing unto them.

And like those pernicious Fabians of old, they have no qualms about smashing the world to bits if such means lead to their desired end.

The Fabians, of course, never rush anything. Unless they panic. At which time they reveal themselves. To be the losers they are.

Yes, I am no fan of the Fabian socialists.

Because their whole programme is predicated on deception and secrecy.

And, as such, it should be thoroughly suspect whenever encountered.

But this is a comedy, right?

Yes! Amen!! Something we can agree on!!!

[perhaps]

This grand apologia is to introduce one of my favorite films.

Three Amigos.

It is not “politically correct”, but then NOTHING was in 1986.

And with “correctness” we have lost our sense of humor.

We are too easily offended.

We need “safe spaces”.

Ok, ok…I promise I’m not about to get all Bill O’Reilly here.

Because I have railed AGAINST Fox News for many years.

And, dare I say it, the real heroes in the USA were those who took CHANCES…BIG FUCKING CHANCES…to preserve liberty.

Trump came to the party late.

And I came to Trump even later.

But the real heroes are people like Alex Jones.

Indeed, there is no one like him.

But with the “Joneses” came others like Steve Pieczenik.

And so the tables have turned against the globalists.

Thank God for BREXIT!

Thank God for Trump!

And may God bless Marine Le Pen!

Because the neoliberal nightmare in which we are now mired (including the neoconservative, never-ending wars) has set the globalist agenda back decades.

The European Union is falling apart.

And rightly so.

Because it was a bad idea in the first place.

France must get rid of the atrocious Loi Gayssot.

And other European countries must follow suit.

We must be allowed to TALK!

The Internet will not allow tyranny.

Every government which seeks to control will find itself obsolete.

And so call it whatever you want.

If you’re “free market”, then the Internet is the genius of capitalism.

If you’re fond of sharing (so am I), then the Internet is the redistributive genius of socialism.

And, finally, we have the monstrosity of China.

Clearly no longer a communist state.

Yet neither a capitalist free market.

The mutant which is China…that juggernaut has been smashing the world in terms of productivity.

But there is a limit.

Now the people want FREEDOM.

[or so we are told]

At any rate, the blowback of globalism will ensure that the Chinese people crave the OPPORTUNITY (at least) to behave like Westerners.

THAT much is human nature.

And so I am not against natural globalization.

In that respect, the Fabians are right.

If “gradualism” is taken to mean “let nature take its course”.

But I am and will forever remain AGAINST synthetic globalism.

Globalization vs. globalism.

Semantic.

Suffice to say, I am very much against FORCED globalization.

And perhaps Erdoğan is a manifestation of reaction.

“Reactionary”, as the socialists always say. The worst insult a leftie can level!

As such, I have nothing against Erdoğan, but he can’t hold on to power IN SPITE OF the people.

Same with Trump.

Trump barely squeaked out a victory.

Because the globalist machine is so strong in America.

But rural pride was stronger.

And the Electoral College defeated Hillary Clinton.

But Trump will have to produce.

He knows this.

The clock is ticking on his four years.

And he has had adversaries on all sides.

So it remains to be seen…whether he will make good on his campaign promises.

I am standing behind him.

I am supporting him.

But I am ready to call “bullshit” when the moment is ripe.

Hopefully that moment will never come.

Hopefully he will be a wonderful President.

Which brings us back to “race”.

The wall.

It’s not meant to be “a symbol”, it’s meant to be a wall.

And we in America have long known that the story of 9/11 is seriously flawed…like Swiss cheese…it is not plausible.

I often shoot my mouth off (my defining characteristic), but I have done my research on 9/11.

It may be the most complex event ever.

But it certainly was not the work of 19 blokes with boxcutters.

And everywhere…we saw the stand-down.

Two parts to Roberta Wohlstetter’s pet theory.

False-flag stand-down.

9/11 was no more Islamic than Mickey Mouse.

And so many signs proved this case.

If it had been an attack actually emanating from outside the United States (as opposed to an inside, CIA job), then our southern border would have been secured toot sweet.

But such was not the case.

And those of us near the southern border had all the information we needed to put the final nail in the coffin.

That 9/11 was a self-inflicted attack.

[with help from Israeli Mossad and others]

It was a team effort of the globalists.

However, to paraphrase Guy Debord, “deceit deceived itself”.

9/11 was the day when the Ivy League lost.

Once and for all.

Never again will Yale be the same.

Never again will Harvard be guiltless (if they ever were [and they weren’t]).

Brave people spoke out.

Webster Tarpley (of Princeton).

Steve Pieczenik (of Cornell and Harvard).

But now our Ivy League President (Penn) has a chance to reverse the sustained-lie–the 8-year-nightmare of Barack Obama’s unreality.

The Democratic Party squandered its chance to see the neocons swing from the gallows.

I would describe this wonderful film as being like a 1960s Turkish version of Sicario.

Though The Law of the Border is not a big-budget movie (a military officer comically says “let’s surround them” when he only has three soldiers [himself included]), the film is overall convincing. It conveys a very powerful story.

As stated earlier, the principal activity at issue is smuggling.

What could be more timely to this day and age?

In the US it is drugs (from Mexico), and in Turkey it is perhaps other things (coming in and out of Syria).

And if the main character looks like Putin?!?

Well, it certainly confuses the meaning, but it still makes it like a Salvador Dalí dream.

It’s like a perfect storm of symbolism.

Furthermore, besides being a film set on a border, a main issue is education in Turkey.

This is, once again, a very timely issue.

As you might have heard last year, there were many protests by high school students in Turkey about the trend of religious schools replacing secular (or science) schools.

Incidentally, our director Ömer Lütfi Akad went to the oldest high school in Turkey: Galatasaray Lisesi in Istanbul. The school was started in 1481.

But let me tell you something important…

This film is very entertaining!!!

The gunfights!

Whizz! Bing! Pow!

It reminds me a bit of Howard Hawks’ Scarface from 1932.

Also at issue in this film is the concept of change.

Can a person change their beliefs?

Like me…

Can I change my beliefs?

I am 39.

Yılmaz Güney was 29 at the time of this film.

Can we change our beliefs?

And should we?

For Güney’s character Hidir, changing his beliefs is a Herculean effort.

And the moral of the somewhat-propagandistic story is that he’s a hero…JUST FOR TRYING.

He tried to change.

He makes a valiant effort.

A bit like Samuel L. Jackson’s character Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction.

This is the challenge for the world.

To look ourselves in our mirrors and make an effort.

Not physically (necessarily), but philosophically.

I’m not here to offer you propaganda.

But I am very concerned with the situation the real Vladimir Putin has been put in in Syria.

Why do we fight? [to echo the old series of American propaganda films from WWII]

Because this is one of those films which requires a certain attention to detail.

Get the damn title right.

So what is it?

I have just watched the British version…we’ll call it (adhering to common practice) Confidential Report.

I had seen this once before.

To me it was always Mr. Arkadin. I didn’t realize the level of controversy surrounding this film’s numerous versions.

But let me point something out. All of the versions are within a few minutes of each other. Sure, some are in Spanish. That makes a difference. But at a certain point it is splitting hairs. Either you’ve seen this thing or you haven’t.

I can understand the legalistic approach to film preservation when it comes to this picture.

If the whole thing isn’t presented as a flashback, I can see how the composition might be negatively affected.

But who cares? Bogdanovich? Sure…I care too.

And so let’s get around to why one should even care in the first place.

This is a magnificent movie!

I didn’t really think so the first time I saw it.

It’s possible to see this film and be caught in a The Big Sleep haze.

So maybe it does depend on the version.

Maybe the film isn’t supposed to be confusing.

Yet, there’s something nice (pleasant) about being confused.

If this was a universal maxim, I would walk around with a smile on my face perpetually.

But the confusion here is a rare sort.

When I first saw Mr. Arkadin I mainly “retained” (absorbed?) only its mood.

Something was happening. Orson Welles was a shadowy character.

There wasn’t a sense of continuity.

But here’s another possibility.

This film needs (deserves) to be seen more than once.

The action moves fast.

Weird things are afoot.

The whole film is a sort of riddle.

And the symbolism is as stinky-strong as Roquefort.

Wikipedia might lead you to Basil Zaharoff, but my mind was wandering more towards George Soros and/or Rupert Murdoch.

You might cue it up on Hulu (good luck with Netflix) as part of the Criterion Collection.

You might put your headphones on.

But the Criterion Collection presents this as a truly silent film.

We know that that wasn’t the case most of the time with “silent” films.

They had live piano accompaniment. Perhaps an orchestra.

In some countries (Japan?) they had sound effects performed live.

But watching La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc today is truly a lonely experience.

You might keep the headphones on out of habit (as if a sound might finally emerge…but it never does).

It takes a valiant effort to watch this film in its totality and not cry when the famous scene comes.

“The famous scene” I refer to is the one made famous by Godard’s best “movie”: Vivre sa vie.

Anna Karina sits in a movie theater and watches this very film. And we join her just in time to see the tears roll down her cheeks.

Joan of Arc.

She stood for something.

And somehow, a “religious” court found her guilty. She is labeled for all time, by this panel of judges, an “apostate” and an “idolater”.

What a tragedy!

It very plainly shows us the error of religion.

Joan’s religion is pure. Her dedication is personal.

And who ever gave “the Church” the power to kill?

There is no part of the New Testament which even suggests such a power should emanate from Jesus through the Apostles (his “descendants”) and on down the ages to “the Church”.

And so Christianity failed. There are a lot of apologies to be handed out. The Inquisition, etc.

[It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church rectified this mistake made by a regional element which was allied with the English against the French.]

But the important thing is that Joan stood.

She stood for something. Even if she was a fiery mystic like Hildegard von Bingen.

And who do we have to look to today?

I would say Snowden. Is Snowden the real article?

He is certainly filling the needed role.

The great evil now is the surveillance state.

It is plain and simple.

And Will Smith should win the Oscar for Best Actor in Concussion even if for one line: “Tell the truth!”

But there are far more important things on which we need the truth.

9/11, the War “on” Terror, ISIS…

Who is standing for those nearly 3000 who died horrible deaths in New York City?

When you wave a false flag, your soldiers don’t mete out justice.

When you wave a false flag, you get the wrong people.

No wonder Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had to be waterboarded 183 times.

And Guantanamo is full of goat farmers.

Therefore (q.e.d.), the 19 hijackers story (being impossible without the assistance of highly-placed “moles” in both the FBI and CIA) is the deadliest “Once upon a time…” ever written.

As much sympathy as I have for all those who died on 9/11 (and it is substantial), we must recognize the web of death which emanated from that lie…that “Once upon a time…”. Try reading the 9/11 Commission Report without vomiting. Why, because it is graphic? No. Because it reads like “My Pet Goat” (which George W. Bush was busy reading in Florida while he should have been rushing for cover = fake terror [w/ real death]).

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria…

It is disgusting. There is not a “dictator” or “warlord” in the world who has wrought the needless destruction which the United States of America (by way of lies) has visited upon the Muslim world in the past 15 years.

But let’s be fair. Our soldiers have been tricked. Their lives have been ruined in the course of fighting this imperial war. I am an American. I pity our military. They did not join up to fight shadow wars. They did not join up to be the tools of imperialists. They wanted to protect the United States. Their generals have only succeeded in making the world a more dangerous place.

And that brings us to ISIS. ISIS typifies everything fake about the War “on” Terror. From the bastards who brought you the self-inflicted wound known as 9/11 comes a new comedy starring those wild and crazy terrorists who sprang up from nowhere.

Just like al-Qaeda. Sprang up from nowhere. Of course, there was the Operation Cyclone-era groundwork laid (that would be, CIA funding), but in general the “roll-out” of al-Qaeda was fairly quick. But ISIS took the cake. The confectioners of fake terror (that would be, the U.S., U.K., NATO countries, Israel, Five Eyes, take your pick, etc.) really outdid themselves with their speed to market in introducing ISIS. In doing so, the New World Order (let’s call them) cannibalized their own product (al-Qaeda) just as Apple does each time it rolls out a new iPhone.

And so it has been transparent all along. The catchy name has incriminated ISIS (no fundamentalist terrorist group from the Middle East would ever name themselves after an Egyptian pagan god) from the beginning.

ISIS is like a water cooler joke at Langley. The spooks can’t believe how dumb we are.

And so it has been the U.S. airdrops which have sustained ISIS. Yes, Turkey has provided a good bit of sustenance (under the aegis of NATO).

WE have been ISIS’ air force. We haven’t been bombing ISIS. At all. Ever.

Russia has made this clear.

Make no mistake, Russia entered the Syrian theater because of the insanity of NATO along her borders.

Since Russia has entered:

-Russian passenger jumbo jet blown up over the Sinai Peninsula

-sabotage operation of explosions which have knocked out a considerable amount of power in Crimea (in the winter)

– Turkish (NATO) shootdown of Russian fighter/bomber

These are not pleasant things.

It is hard to tell exactly what role the Paris attacks played.

I think they were an American operation which backfired when France leaned towards Russia. It is, however, possible that it was a French-engineered false-flag to allow France a pretext for joining Russia. Perhaps the DGSE saw no other solution than sacrificing a hundred or so Parisians to stop the American war of insanity in Syria.

What is most obvious is the general arc of this farce: 9/11 (absolutely false narrative regarding the guilty party), the War “on” Terror (more lies lies lies…never ending war…profits for Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam), and ISIS (as fake as the Kuwaiti babies being ripped out of incubators which was foisted upon the U.S. Congress thanks to Hill & Knowlton PR firm).

Only appropriate that we would reapproach France during these tense times with this film which is, believe it or not, more full of tension than anything I can recall in Hitchcock’s oeuvre.

Yes, The Wages of Fear by director Henri-Georges Clouzot is unlike anything I have ever seen. More or less.

A parallel can be made to the Humphrey Bogart film They Drive by Night, but Le Salaire de la peur is of a different caliber altogether.

Believe it or not, Yves Montand actually out-acts Bogart in this here film.

From the bizarre beginnings, we hardly have any clue where this flick is going.

Where are we? Tegucigalpa? No, not enough oil. Venezuela? Perhaps.

D’où Venons Nous / Que Sommes Nous / Où Allons Nous???

Mexico. A fictional (?) town called Las Piedras. The stones.

Not to be confused with pies (feet).

Indeed, stones play an important part in this film. And so do feet.

But initially we are disoriented by the Eisenstein-like montage reminiscent of ¡Que viva México! A small child with a sombrero and no pants playing with cockroaches.

And as the film gets going we notice the multitude of languages. Spanish, French, German (?), Italian…maybe Dutch?

The Dutchman in question is played by German actor Peter van Eyck (born Götz von Eick).

In fact, I thought for much of the film that I was watching Oskar Werner (much to my chagrin upon consulting the credits).

And so we have a hodgepodge of refugees in this one-horse town of Las Piedras, but the oil industry beckons…on the frontier. It is a dangerous industry (and becomes infinitesimally more dangerous through the course of this film).

I do believe I have heard Clouzot described as the French Hitchcock. After seeing this, that makes perfect sense.

Le salaire de la peur is such a pithy, visceral film.

I don’t want to give too much away, but this is a very powerful film which takes aim at corporate callousness. But the real theme is danger. Fear. Anxiety. The sickness of worry.

It reminds us that we shouldn’t judge our fellow humans too harshly. We can never know the exact feelings or the exact situation.

One final thought. Nitroglycerine plays an integral part in this film.

I pray that the Russian soldiers who died yesterday will not have died in vain. May the leaders of Turkey and the other NATO countries come to their senses in what has been sheer geopolitical insanity along Russia’s border. What restraint Russia has shown compared to the egregious stunt pulled by Turkey! As with all actions emanating from the West, I wouldn’t be surprised if the incident was ordered to occur (giving propitious conditions) by a power residing much further west than Ankara.

May courage and wisdom be with the militaries of all nations, the soldiers of which are thrust into the most unenviable positions imaginable. War for profit has hit its maximum potential. If there be one true diplomat left on the planet, let him or her please stand up at this crucial time.